Skip to main content

Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.

Star Trek
(2009)

(SPOILERS) If JJ Abrams’ taking up the torch of the original Star Wars trilogy had been as supremely satisfying as his Star Trek reboot, I’d have very little beef with it. True, they both fall victim to some incredibly ropey plotting, but where Star Trek scores, making it an enormously rewatchable movie, is that it gets its characters right – which isn’t to suggest it’s getting The Original Series characters right, but it’s giving us compelling new iterations of them – and sends them on emotional journeys that satisfy. If the third act is somewhat rote, its achievements up to that point put it comfortably in the top rank of Trek movies.


Albeit, some fans of the show would argue that what it’s doing isn’t very Trek at all, that Abrams is bringing his love of – yes – Star Wars-style space opera to the Trek universe and fashioning something that resembles TOS in name only (here he gives us Han Solo as the lead, and a Jedi as the supporting character). They may have a point, as the particular brand of philosophical intercourse and righteous moralising that marked out the series is in scant supply, but I can only reiterate how enjoyable this movie is. Is that a cop out? That it disarms the senses in the manner of a sugar rush, rather than providing food for thought? Quite probably: it’s a ride, a blast, confidently performed by an expertly-chosen cast (bar one, perhaps), so illustrating, as with The Force Awakens, that JJ really knows how to pick ‘em.


Added to which, Michael Giacchino furnishes the picture with an un utterly gorgeous, hugely affecting score. Giacchino has fared variably with his big screen work, but this is right up there with some of the most indelible, moving incidental cues he supplied Lost. It’s quite something to have delivered a new Trek theme that can stand proud – it may not surpass the original, but it certainly knocks the stuffing out of The Motion Picture/ Star Trek: The Next Generation version.


Abrams and his composer pack a musical wallop from the first, as Thor’s self-sacrifice ensures the survival of his wife and child, before seguing into a young James T stealing his stepdad’s car to the sound of Sabotage (encored in Star Trek Beyond, albeit one can’t help but feel it’s less than inspired to rest on your laurels, inviting approval with that kind of call-back). The casting of Chris Pine is absolutely the key to the reboot’s success, even more than who they chose for Spock. Pine’s just so damn charming, and gives a perfectly modulated performance. So much so that the biggest compliment you can pay him is he makes it look effortless.


Test Administrator: How the hell did that kid beat your test?
Spock: I do not know.

If you can get past this version of Kirk performing a straight-up cheat on the Kobayashi Maru rather than being very clever (i.e. he doesn’t reprogram the computer himself, he gets someone else to do it), then his initial contretemps with Spock is highly effective in establishing the picture’s ongoing tension (“The test itself is a cheat, isn’t it?”) There’s material here that really shouldn’t work – Kirk with a fat tongue and swollen hands attempting to warn Pike of the danger of Nero’s return – but it plays faultlessly because Abrams has an unerring acumen for pace and escalation. And because we’re onside Kirk as the underdog, with something to prove, with the odds stacked against him (even as a bit of jock with something to prove and the odds stacked against him).


McCoy: Who was that pointy-eared bastard?
Kirk: I don’t know, but I like him.

Spock’s path is more divergent, if equally informed by parental loss, as we’re exposed to him on the constant verge of an emotional eruption. Zachary Quinto, even in repose, doesn’t have the impenetrable quality of Leonard Nimoy; he appears mildly annoyed rather than detached. But again, if you looking for fidelity to the original, you’re going to be disappointed, And why would you? This is a different timeline, as we are constantly told.


Spock here is violent even as a wee bairn, and we see him permanently petulant, in love (with Uhura – a smart move that undercuts Kirk’s natural cocksmanship, although it slightly serves to identify Uhura as an other half rather than a person in her own right; still an improvement on the original incarnation, however, who was only ever a glorified switchboard operator).


Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman undoubtedly have their issues as writers (some would say that’s putting it mildly), but they thrash out the beats of Spock’s arc here quite seamlessly; his ties to his (human) mother are underlined from the start, so losing her is entirely traumatic and throws him off balance, providing his motivation for beaming Kirk off the ship and the latter’s for provoking him into proving himself unfit for duty. Let’s face it, though, it’s a bit of a stretch that Spock would actually think of and be enabled to throw Kirk off the Enterprise. He’d surely be sent straight to the brig. But then he wouldn’t get to meet Spock Prime.


Ah yes, Spock Prime. It’s nice to see Leonard Nimoy again, of course, even if he’s leading with his dentures, but there’s something a tad disingenuous about the decision. You don’t need him to rewrite the timeline (pick any character, or make up one), and it’s a blatant attempt at hedging bets, trying to keep the faithful faithful in the face of a potentially unpopular decision (although, let’s face it, Star Trek Academy nearly happened in the ‘80s, and the potential recasting there really was frightening).


The result not only does Quinto a disservice (here’s the guy with forty-plus years making the role iconic, so don’t even entertain the notion that you’ve got a glimmer of a chance to make the part your own) but feels ungainly. It’s even more so in the sequel, where featuring him begins to look like an active insult. Some of the choices are a bit off – should Nimoy really be calling Pine Kirk “Jim” all the time, and that mind meld is blatantly included just so there’s a mind meld in the movie, that and an awkward mass of exposition –  and its extraordinary how, with a whole planet to mess about on, Kirk should stumble on the exact cave where Spock is hiding out, and be within spitting distance of Scotty. So yeah, it’s all about Abrams sheer verve smoothing over a not inconsiderably bumpy screenplay.


Every Trek movie since The Wrath of Khan that has consciously attempted to come up with a worthy villain to be talked about in the same breath as Ricardo Montalban has fallen short, some more than others. Eric Banana’s Nero is the second Romulan-focussed baddie on the trot (albeit seven years apart) and his motivation is both sloppy and one-note (I suppose, if they ever make another post-Voyager show, they’ll now have to remember there’s no more Romulus). Bana’s fine, but Nero has no meat on his bones.


Pike: Careful with the ship, Spock. She’s brand new.

On the other hand, Bruce Greenwood is the best piece of casting here beside from Pine, making Captain Pike exactly the sort of father-surrogate mentor figure needed, and it’s a great shame he’s summarily written out in the sequel. Ben Cross is okay as Sarek, if a bit on the expressive side, while Noonie makes a believably cherished Amanda (it comes to something when Winona Ryder is playing all the mum parts).


Scotty: Are you from the future…? Well, that’s brilliant. Do they still have sandwiches there?

The rest of the crew? Zoe Saldana is allowed to be more interesting than Nichelle Nichols ever had a chance to be, Karl Urban does a note-perfect DeForest Kelly impression (“Green-blooded hobgoblin!”) Cho changes Sulu’s nationality, but brings his own personability, while Anton Yelchin gets to play Chekov with the wariable diction of Walter Koenig but is revealed as a tech wizard as well.


And then there’s Scotty. I like Simon Pegg in a lot of things – he’s the perfect comic relief in the Mission: Impossibles, especially when teamed with Cruise – but he sticks out like a sore thumb here, doing a bad Ewan Bremner impression and ranting at his diminutive sidekick (the unenviable Trek equivalent of an Ewok? Somehow Deep Roy’s Keenser managed to last all three movies, a better record than Jar Jar) He isn’t a deal breaker, but he’s the one element where Abrams’ fanboy instincts led to the wrong choice.


The plot of Trek may evidence Orci and Kurtzman’s typically patchy approach (for the first two-thirds, Into Darkness’ storyline is actually pretty good, before falling into significant disrepute), but Abrams really brings it with energy and enthusiasm (and, yes, a slavish addiction to lens flare and an Enterprise bridge designed by Apple). There are a number of enervating set pieces, the highlight probably being the planetary freefall in which Kirk and Sulu (and an unlucky red shirt) dive to dismantle the drilling device intent on feeding red matter into Vulcan.


You might argue Star Trek ’09 displays the worst excesses of blockbuster filmmaking, where the plot disintegrates as soon as you prod it, but I’d counter that Abrams, who may not be a Trekkie (no bad thing, except when it came to thinking Khan’s return was a good idea), has as firm a grip on his characters as with any of his greater successes (it’s no coincidence that it’s also The Force Awakens’ strong suit, the storyline not so much). What he probably needed to do was bring someone on board with a firm grasp of structure and internal logic for the sequel.  Maybe he’ll consult with Rian Johnson on Star Wars Episode IX. We can but hope his all-consuming mystery box will not win out. As it stands, though, Star Trek might be his best movie (it’s a close thing with Mission: Impossible III, much underrated). And, while it’s some distance from perfection, but it can lay claim to being the most confident, purely cinematic iteration of the TV series.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.